On 09/02/2016 05:51 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> individual sovereignty and anarchism Try "individual RESPONSIBILITY to the 'collective' called humanity and Anarchism" and I'll nibble. Until then it's just Feudal Nihilism by different means. Ps. "New Left" is a DISGUSTING reference to everything that was wrong with the now-non-existent 'left' in the US. It was Reform towards Progressive-liberalism (spellchecker also notes a correction to "Oppresive-Liberalism"). A strategy and tactic-less'borging' of Radical activism by people with access to the media. Cf. The end result of Occupy with imperialist cunts like Dave "I support "anarchists" who collaborate with the CIA for a chunk of Private Property" Graeber Rr > The new dichotomy, Nationalism vs Globalism. > > This is how the current USA election debate is now framed it seems, see > for example: > > > Hillary’s ‘Racism’ Speech, And the Stunning Emergence of The New Left > and Right > "Old Lady Yells At Internet" > "A titanic struggle between nationalism and globalism is playing out in > the American elections" > http://russia-insider.com/en/moment-reckoning-has-come-american-political-scene-hillary-reveals-alt-right-world/ri16135 > > > Left out of this debate of course are other genuine and alternative > foundations such as a swing towards individual sovereignty and > anarchism, which some name as direct democracy (perhaps a branch of > the theory of anarchism/ anarchy/ political anarchy?). > > The powers that be of course are pushing very aggressively for globalism > - their One World Order or New World Order, of course with America at > the helm and dictating the terms. But individual sovereignty seems to > strike fear into the hearts of oligarchs and global power brokers, since > they still frame the debate as a black and white dichotomy between > globalism and nationalism - this is their preferred dichotomy, > attempting to ensure that individual sovereignty, politically empowering > the individual, does not get a look in on this debate. > > We the disempowered, the non monied, will take nationalism over > globalism, and "the elites" will take nationalism over individual > sovereigntism. > > So except that the American voting machines are controlled by the > existing powers that be in America and institute an entirely corrupt > outcome, with "everything overall touch and go for the results, who can > say?" and a "key swing state" "just nudges Hillary over the line" (ever > seen this sort of corruption before?) - aka the usual corruption of > American elections, there's a real chance for nationalism to prevail in > the disgraced olde Ewe Ess of America. > > > Unfortunately it seems the public consciousness is fully entrenched in > dichotomies "gotta have a political party, and play the corrupt game, if > we gonna get a different outcome". > > > Can these disempowering and unnecessary or "false" dichotomies be busted > or changed somehow in the public dialogue? >
